[netfire]

For sure, but it would be a shame if NASA lost confidence and trust (and possibly funding) with their stakeholders (the public), because they weren’t more upfront about the potential risks. As a scientific organization that has experienced significant (and expensive) failures before, I expect better.

[natep]

It seems like you want to discredit NASA now ("shouldn't melt") vs some imagined possibility("won't melt" but it does). With the amount of design, analysis, testing, and independent review and verification of the systems, backup systems, triply redundant systems, and autonomy, we can be as sure of it not melting as we can be sure of anything. And we certainly spent a large amount of money on this (about 1/10th of the World Cup), but in performance and value per $, it's a great deal.

[netfire]

Not at all. I expect NASA has done as much due diligence, planning, testing, and verification as possible. I just don’t think they are being upfront as they should be about the possible risks for a previously unattempted scientific endeavor. We’ve had massive failures (including NASA itself), in environments that are much better understood and with systems that have actually had exposure to those environments.

[netfire]

I also didn’t intend on “shouldn’t melt” to be taken sarcastically. I was trying to show how I would like something changed in the article. Probably a bad use of quotes on my part...